I'm not impressed with the method by which they presented their product.

The shooter wasn't wearing any form of body armour, kevlar head protection or eye-wear. The eejit behind the glass likewise no body armour.

I understand the purpose behind the presentation of the product but I still think it was a fucking stupid demonstration. There were so many things which could have happened besides someone being shot - most likely fatally.

9/03/2011 11:59am,

Gezere

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rock Ape

I'm not impressed with the method by which they presented their product.

The shooter wasn't wearing any form of body armour, kevlar head protection or eye-wear. The eejit behind the glass likewise no body armour.

I understand the purpose behind the presentation of the product but I still think it was a fucking stupid demonstration. There were so many things which could have happened besides someone being shot - most likely fatally.

The shooter not wearing armor, Kevlar, etc doesn't mean a thing that has nothing to do with the demo. The neither does the boss. When I was in Kabul we drove around in armored SUVs while wearing only ACUs. These were mainly for VIPs.

Again the basic premise of the video is that the boss is willing to stake his life on his product because others will be doing it.

As far as something else going wrong. We have no idea how the rest of the area is set up we are only seeing a small part so anything is is just pure speculation. Since it seems nothing went wrong I think that is a huge plus for them.

9/03/2011 8:35pm,

Rock Ape

I understand your point mate and it's very valid, it doesn't however change my opinion on how the presentation was delivered.

I do agree that his willingness to stake his life on his product does bode enormously on its quality. Fair play to him.

9/03/2011 8:40pm,

judoka_uk

I wondered after watching that if there was any 'standard competency' for this kind of product as three single shots from the AK seemed quite low to me,

Given than most of the combat footage I've seen has had the insurgent/ terrorist combatants firing on semi/ full auto and discharging a lot of rounds, very quickly.

I would imagine your widow proofing would need to effective up to 10 round impacts, rather than just 3.

9/03/2011 8:58pm,

Rock Ape

In a video I have of a small arms contact in Iraq about 4-5 years ago, the patrol (in vehicles) came under a 35 second sustained ambush. 35 seconds doesn't sound particularly long but the fuckers managed to disable at least two vehicles killing one of the drivers. His door and window had in excess of 15 hits.

Given that most modern assault weapons carry magazines of 30 rounds, you do the math.

9/04/2011 12:15pm,

Gezere

Quote:

Originally Posted by judoka_uk

I wondered after watching that if there was any 'standard competency' for this kind of product as three single shots from the AK seemed quite low to me,

Given than most of the combat footage I've seen has had the insurgent/ terrorist combatants firing on semi/ full auto and discharging a lot of rounds, very quickly.

I would imagine your widow proofing would need to effective up to 10 round impacts, rather than just 3.

They insurgents in general can't shoot for ****. They are spray and prayers they may hit 3~5 out of 30 rounds. However you have to multiply that but what ever number they have.

With that being said these things are bullet resistant not bullet proof. Armored SUVs are meant to give protection enough to get out of the area and/or counter attack they are not designed to sit there and be peppered with rounds.

9/04/2011 12:30pm,

judoka_uk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rock Ape

[real life experience]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gezere

[real life experience]

Ya, sure. I was wondering if to advertise/ certify your product as 'bullet resistant/proof' that was understood to represent a set number of rounds it could withstand before failure? Or is it not regulated in that kind of way.

And yeh, if you're in a civilian vehicle (even if armoured) fucking off sharpish rather sitting around while a bunch of ragheads use you for target, is probably the way to go.

9/04/2011 6:35pm,

dflanmod

Quote:

Originally Posted by judoka_uk

Ya, sure. I was wondering if to advertise/ certify your product as 'bullet resistant/proof' that was understood to represent a set number of rounds it could withstand before failure? Or is it not regulated in that kind of way.

And yeh, if you're in a civilian vehicle (even if armoured) fucking off sharpish rather sitting around while a bunch of ragheads use you for target, is probably the way to go.

I did some looking around on their website.
They offer different leves of protection based but they don't expound at all upon what the failure point would be for any of those levels.

IE, we can give your car level 1 protection against small arms (handug/shotgun calibers) fire. But they don't say how many hits you can take to a single are before your protection is comprimised.

I did find a video where they showed one of their windshields with 100 hits on it and no pentration through but I suspect that they were demo'ing the thickest one they had.

9/04/2011 9:38pm,

submessenger

Quote:

Originally Posted by dflanmod

I did some looking around on their website.
They offer different leves of protection based but they don't expound at all upon what the failure point would be for any of those levels.